So to start with the “also”… vigilantism is mob justice. It is always a bad thing because it denies people their due process.
It is very, very rare for vigilantes to get it right, or to have excellent target selection. The vast majority of vigilantes go after innocent people whose sole crime is to be different- because they’re bigots.
That said, assuming you didn’t otherwise break the law (so no breaking and entry, or hacking etc) it would most closely be investigative journalism. Sure it might get taken down on whatever platform, etc, but that doesn’t make it vigilantism
CameronDev@programming.dev 2 weeks ago
Vigilantism is bad because of the slippery slope issue. It starts with solid proof, and then slowly declines towards “vibes”, or fabrication of proof.
“Beyond reasonable doubt” is the high bar set by the legal system, and they have the processes in place to ensure that the bar is met before declaring guilt (its not perfect, but it is so far the best system we have).
If the proof is solid, and the law enforcement is functional, its better to hand it to them and let the system do its job. If the law enforcement isnt functional, vigilantism is all that is left, but you should strive to meet the “beyond reasonable doubt” bar. E.g is the evidence good, do you have the right person, could someone else be framing/manipulating the facts.